High Court upholds N.C. congressional district

WASHINGTON
(AP) -- The Supreme Court upheld a much-litigated North Carolina
congressional district Wednesday, saying those who challenged it did not
show that race was the main factor in its creation.

The 5-4 ruling was the fourth time that the high court has looked at
North Carolina's 12th district. The case is a follow-up to a landmark 1993
decision that racially drawn districts may violate the rights of white
voters.

"The evidence ... does not show that racial considerations predominated
in the drawing of District 12's boundaries," Justice Stephen G. Breyer
wrote for the court. "That is because race in this case correlates closely
with political behavior."

Writing for the four, Thomas said the lower court ruling that the
district was unlawfully based on race was not clearly erroneous and should
not be overturned.

The district is represented by Democrat Mel Watt, one of two blacks
elected to Congress in 1992 from a state that had not sent a black to
Washington since 1901.

North Carolina had argued that the district's latest boundaries were
dictated by politics, not race. Lawyers for the state argued that the
North Carolina Legislature wanted to ensure the district was safely
Democratic, to maintain an even split between Republicans and Democrats in
the state's congressional delegation.

The 12th includes the cities of Charlotte, Winston-Salem and
Greensboro, urban areas that have large black populations and tend to vote
Democratic.

Disputes over the district have led to three previous Supreme Court
rulings, starting with a 1993 decision that said voting districts designed
to help minorities can be invalidated if they violate white voters'
rights.

In 1996, the Supreme Court declared that an earlier version of the
district, which had a 57 percent majority of blacks among registered
voters, was unlawfully based on race.

State lawmakers redrew the district in 1997, creating one 71 miles long
in which blacks comprised 46 percent of registered voters. A federal court
ruled it unconstitutional in 1998, and the primaries were delayed so the
Legislature could go back to the drawing table.

The Supreme Court reversed that ruling in 1999, saying the lower court
wrongly decided the case without first holding a trial.

In March 2000, the three-judge panel again ruled the 12th District
unlawful, saying legislators "utilized race as the predominant factor in
drawing the district." The state did not offer compelling reasons to
justify such use of race, the three-judge court said. It concluded that
the district was "an impermissible and unconstitutional racial
gerrymander."

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court said the lower court was wrong.

Breyer wrote that after a detailed review of the three-judge panel's
findings, "that review leaves us with the definite and firm conviction
that the district court's key findings are mistaken." He said the lower
court wrongly considered evidence of voting registration rather than
voting behavior.

In cases in which race correlates with political affiliation, Breyer
added, those who attack a voting district must show "that the legislature
could have achieved its legitimate political objectives in alternative
ways that are comparably consistent with traditional districting
principles."

Thomas wrote in dissent that the lower court found evidence
"demonstrating that race was foremost on the legislative agenda."

While the case wound through the courts, the 2000 Census came and went.